Posted on 07/14/2002 9:08:40 AM PDT by RJCogburn
In commencement remarks at Ohio State University, President Bush called on graduates to make “a culture of service” a permanent part of American life. He told graduates that they will determine whether “we become a culture of selfishness and look inward” or “embrace a culture of service and look outward.”
Edward Hudgins, the Washington director of the Objectivist Center, a national philosophic think-tank, says Bush has it all wrong. He says Americans should be proudly selfish. The author of an op-ed on “Is Community Service Really a Good Idea?” and a Ph.D. in political philosophy, Dr. Hudgins states, “Personal responsibility, not charity, is the true measure of moral worth.”
“It’s not how much we give to others, but the extent to which we take responsibility for our own lives,” says Dr. Hudgins. “If more people exercised rational judgment and self-discipline, we wouldn't need a permanent standing army of volunteers.”
Bush has created the new federal USA Freedom Corps to pay volunteers. Dr. Hudgins thinks that the Bush plan smacks more of force than voluntarism. “The President wants to pay these ‘volunteers’ with taxes. That means that we're forcing people to pay for a volunteer service.” Hudgins does recognize self-interested reasons for helping others. “Americans gave generously after the September 11th attacks to help correct an injustice. It's in our interest to foster a society of independent, productive, and creative people.” But, he adds, “Millions of immigrants came to America not to service others or to be served but to build the best lives for themselves and their families.”
Hudgins says that a government service program will make Americans servile and weak, further eroding our ethical infrastructure. “It is immoral because it implies that we must earn our freedom through service to others when in fact, each of us has the individual and unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. America,” he says, “needs a moral revival based on personal responsibility and rational-self-interest.”
Copyright, The Objectivist Center. For more information, please visit www.ObjectivistCenter.org.
You nicely point out a major difference.
The concept of self-sacrifice as something one ought to do to be 'good' is the great evil here.
Not necessarily. What I said was "The concept of self-sacrifice as something one ought to do to be 'good' is the great evil here."
"If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit. The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man, and he degrades the conception of love. But that is the essence of altruism. "(Rand, The Fountainhead)
Actually, that's not true from the objectivist's standpoint. Much of this confusion arises from the way they define sacrifice. If I consult my Oxford's it says a sacrifice is giving up a thing of value for something that is more important. But the way an objectivist defines sacrifice is giving up a thing of value for something less. If the veteran had truly "sacrificed himself" in this sense, he would have regarded himself as being worth more than the values he lives by and the nation that protects them.
This is one minor gripe I have with Rand- she insisted on her own definition of the word, albeit- she specified exactly what she meant and gave a good solid reason why she thought it should be defined so- but still, the way the word is generally understood both colloquially and literally by the vast majority of English speakers automatically puts her at odds with those people she might have reached otherwise.
To be specific, Rand states that a sacrifice would be a mother not buying milk for her baby in order to buy a bottle of milk for the neighbor's baby. I think most of us would agree that we must take care of ourselves before we can take care of anybody else- then we must take care of our own family before tending to the neighbor's or stranger's. We are not at odds at all there with Rand.
Generally speaking, she is referring to this practice of the lefties implying, insinuating, and outright stating that we are immoral for being succesful in the US when so many are starving in Africa. How dare you drive a SUV when there are homeless people... This sort of thing.
I think a lot of the flak that objectivists and Rand get from the Right is because they are the victims of bad press/PR (much of it her/their own fault). Her values come closer to conservatism than anything else (she regarded libertarianism as laughable and unworkable). Except for a few issues, I would reckon that most conservatives would agee with most of what she is for. Small gov't, individual freedom, right to bear arms, low or no income taxes, free markets, the right to own your property and dispose of it how you wish, the right to live your life free from gov't intrusion. She also didn't think a woman should be president, she thought drugs should be illegal, she believed in having a police force- note these are all at odds with libertarian thinking. Oh and she LOVED the USA- she felt it was the noblest country ever created and a paradise on Earth- obviously, lefties don't feel this way, they hate America.
Where she runs afoul of conservatives, in my opinion, is her contemptuous attitude toward religion (but keep in mind, she supported one's freedom to practice religion and many conservatives are atheists- even right here on this board) and her attitude towards abortion. But if conservatives hate her- it is nothing at all like the hate that the lefties and liberals have for her and they have a good reason to fear her- she nails the lefties better than anyone and calls them what they are- thieves liars and murderers. It is no wonder they do not like her.
At any rate, if I as a soldier die on the battle field, I would have died fighting for the values that I cannot live without, for the security of my home and family from invasion. We as a nation have the rights of the individual and freedom as our core values. My freedoms are protected by my nation's boundaries- allowing me to live and pursue my happiness. If my nation is not secure- I cannot be and am not until that is rectified just as I cannot be secure while a murderous gang is located in my neighborhood or a thief is in my house. I will not sacrifice these things (my freedom, security, rights) to the whims of a hostile hoard of invaders- whatever the scale- home, community, nation. If I must die defending my liberty and values and rights so be it- but this is a good trade. I will not live as a slave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.